下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
To say that the child learns by imitation and that the way to teach is to set a good example oversimplifies. No child imitates every action he sees. Sometimes, the example the parent wants him to follow is ignored while he takes over contrary patterns from some other examples. Therefore we must turn to a more subtle theory than “Monkey see, monkey do”.
Look at it from the child's point of view. Here he is in a new situation, lacking a ready response. He is seeking a response which will gain certain ends. If he lacks a ready response for the situation, and cannot reason out what to do, he observes a model who seems able to get the right result. The child looks for an authority or expert who can show what to do.
There is a second element at work in this situation. The child may be able to attain his immediate goal only to find that his method brings criticism from people who observe him. When shouting across the house achieves his immediate end of delivering a message, he is told emphatically that such a racket is unpleasant, and that he should walk into the next room and say his say quietly. Thus, the desire to solve any objective situation is overlaid with the desire to solve it properly. One of the early things the child learns is that he gets more affection and approval when his parents like his response. Then other adults reward some actions and criticize others. If one is to maintain the support of others and his own self-respect, he must adopt responses his social group approves.
In finding trial responses, the learner does not choose models at random. He imitates the person who seems a good person to be like, rather than a person whose social status he wishes to avoid. If the pupil wants to be a good violinist, he will observe and try to copy the techniques of capable players; while some other people may most influence his approach to books.
Admiration of one quality often leads us to admire a person as a whole, and he becomes an identifying figure. We use some people as models over a wide range of situations, imitating much that they do. We learn that they are dependable and rewarding models because imitating them leads to success.
1. By the last sentence of the first paragraph, the author ______.
A. compares children's behaviors to monkeys'
B. tells us that children do not learn by imitation
C. thinks it is partial to regard imitation as “Monkey see, monkey do”
D. means that children should not learn by imitating their parents
2. What is the first element at work when a child learns by imitation?
A. To find a way to attain the desired goal.
B. To be acknowledged by his social group.
C. To find an authority or expert.
D. To find a way to avoid criticism.
3. According to the third paragraph, besides achieving his goals, a child should also learn to ______.
A. attain his desired results as soon as possible
B. show his love for his parents and friends
C. talk in a low voice
D. behave properly
4. It can be inferred from paragraph four that children usually imitate people ______.
A. who do not scold them
B. who they want to be like
C. who have a high social status
D. who give them many rewards
5. The last two paragraphs are mainly about ______.
A. how children learn by imitation
B. the motive of children's imitation
C. how children choose models
D. how imitation influence children's growth
Over the last 25 years, British society has changed a great deal—or at least many parts of it have. In some ways, however, very little has changed, particularly where attitudes are concerned. Ideas about social class—whether a person is “working-class” or “middle-class”—are one area in which changes have been extremely slow.
In the past, the working-class tended to be paid less than middle-class people, such as teachers and doctors. As a result of this and also of the fact that workers' jobs were generally much less secure, distinct differences in life styles and attitudes came into existence. The typical working man would collect his wages on Friday evening and then, it was widely believed, having given his wife her “housekeeping”, would go out and squander the rest on beer and betting.
The stereotype of what a middle-class man did with his money was perhaps nearer the truth. He was—and still is—inclined to take a longer-term view. Not only did he regard buying a house as a top priority, but he also considered the education of his children as extremely important. Both of these provided him and his family with security. Only in very few cases did workers have the opportunity (or the education and training) to make such long-term plans.
Nowadays, a great deal has changed. In a large number of cases factory workers earn as much, if not more, than their middle-class supervisors. Social security and laws to improve job-security, combined with a general rise in the standard of living since the mid-fifties of the 20th century, have made it less necessary than before to worry about “tomorrow”. Working-class people seem slowly to be losing the feeling of inferiority they had in the past. In fact there has been a growing tendency in the past few years for the middle-classes to feel slightly ashamed of their position.
The changes in both life styles and attitudes are probably most easily seen amongst younger people. They generally tend to share very similar tastes in music and clothes, they spend their money in having a good time, and save for holidays or longer-term plans when necessary. There seems to be much less difference than in previous generations. Nevertheless, we still have a wide gap between the well-paid (whatever the type of job they may have) and the low-paid. As long as this gap exists, there will always be a possibility that new conflicts and jealousies will emerge, or rather that the old conflicts will reappear, but between different groups.
1. What are the causes of class differences in the past?
A. Life style and occupation.
B. Attitude and income.
C. Income and job security.
D. Job securities and hobbies.
2. The writer seems to suggest that the description of ______ is closer to truth.
A. middle-class ways of spending money
B. working-class ways of spending the weekend
C. working-class drinking habits
D. middle-class life attitudes
3. According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a typical feature of the middle-class?
A. Desire for security.
B. Making long-term plans.
C. Having priorities in life.
D. Saving money.
4. The working-classes' sense of security increased as a result of all the following factors EXCEPT _____.
A. better social security
B. more job opportunities
C. higher living standard
D. better legal protection
5. Which of the following statements is INCORRECT?
A. Changes are slowly taking place in all sectors of the British society.
B. The gap between working-class and middle-class young people is narrowing.
C. Differences in income will remain but those in occupation will disappear.
D. The middle-classes may sometimes feel inferior to the working-classes.
Cultural rules determine every aspect of food consumption. Who eats together defines social units. For example, in some societies, the nuclear family is the unit that regularly eats together. The anthropologist Mary Douglas has pointed out that, for the English, the kind of meal and the kind of food that is served relate to the kinds of social links between people who are eating together. She distinguishes between regular meals, Sunday meals when relatives may come, and cocktail parties for acquaintances. The food served symbolizes the occasion and reflects who is present. For example, only snacks are served at a cocktail party. It would be inappropriate to serve a steak or hamburgers. The distinctions among cocktails, regular meals, and special dinners mark the social boundaries between those guests who are invited for drinks, those who are invited to dinner, and those who come to a family meal. In this example, the type of food symbolizes the category of guest and with whom it is eaten.
In some New Guinea societies, the nuclear family is not the unit that eats together. The men take their meals in a men's house, separately from their wives and children. Women prepare and eat their food in their own houses and take the husband's portion to the men's house. The women eat with their children in their own houses. This pattern is also widespread among Near Eastern societies.
Eating is a metaphor that is sometimes used to signify marriage. In many New Guinea societies, like that of the Lesu on the island of New Ireland in the Pacific and that of the Trobriand Islanders, marriage is symbolized by the couple's eating together for the first time. Eating symbolizes their new status as a married couple. In U.S. society, it is just the reverse. A couple may go out to dinner on a first date.
Other cultural rules have to do with taboos against eating certain things. In some societies, members of a clan, a type of kin (family) group, are not allowed to eat the animal or bird that is their totemic ancestor. Since they believe themselves to be descended from that ancestor, it would be like eating that ancestor or eating themselves.
There is also an association between food prohibitions and rank, which is found in its most extreme form in the caste (social class) system of India. A caste system consists of ranked groups, each with a different economic specialization. In India, there is an association between caste and the idea of pollution. Members of highly ranked groups can be polluted by coming into contact with the bodily secretions, particularly saliva, of individuals of lower-ranked castes. Because of the fear of pollution, Brahmans and other high-ranked individuals will not share food with, not eat from the same plate as, not even accept food from an individual or from a low-ranking caste.
1. According to the first paragraph, the English make clear distinctions between ______.
A. people who eat together
B. the kinds of food served
C. snacks and hamburgers
D. family members and guests
2. According to the passage, who will not eat together?
A. The English.
B. Americans on their first date.
C. Men and women in Near Eastern societies.
D. Newly-weds on the island of New Ireland.
3. Eating together indicates all the following EXCEPT ______.
A. the type of food
B. social relations
C. marital status
D. family ties
4. The last paragraph indicates that in India ______ decides how people eat.
A. financial situation
B. the types of food
C. cultural degree
D. social status
5. What is the main idea of the passage?
A. Different kinds of food in the world.
B. Relations between food and social units.
C. Symbolic meanings of different kinds of food.
D. Food consumption in different cultures.
A boy or a girl? That is usually the first question asked when a woman gives birth. Remarkably, the answer varies with where the mother lives. In rich countries, the chances of its being a boy are about 5% higher than in poor ones. Equally remarkably, that figure has been falling recently. Several theories have been put forward to explain these observations. Some argue that smoking plays a role; others hold that diet may be important. Neither of these ideas has been supported by evidence from large studies. But new research points to a different factor: stress.
Early studies revealed a shift in women who became pregnant during floods and earthquakes and in time of war. Moreover, a study carried out eight years ago by researchers at the University of Aarhus, in Denmark, revealed that women who suffered the death of a child or spouse from some catastrophic illness around the time they conceived were much more likely to give birth to girls than to boys.
Taken together, these results suggest that acute stress to a woman at the time of conception shifts the sex ratio towards girls. However, Carsten Obel, a researcher at Aarhus who was not involved in the earlier study, wondered if the same might be true of chronic stress too. In a paper just published in Human Development , he shows that it is.
Dr. Obel used a set of data collected between 2012 and 2015. During that period 8,719 expectant mothers were asked to fill in questionnaires that inquired, among other things, about their level of stress. Dr. Obel found that the more stressed a mother had been, the less chance she had of having given birth to a boy. Only 47% of children born to women in the top quartile of stress were males. That compared with 52% for women in the bottom quartile. Dr. Obel suspects the immediate cause is that male pregnancies are more likely to miscarry in response to stress than female pregnancies are, especially during the first three months. However, that is difficult to prove. More intriguing, though, is the ultimate cause, for he thinks it might be adaptive, rather than pathological.
That is because the chances are that a daughter who reaches adulthood will find a mate and thus produce grandchildren. A son is a different matter. Healthy, strapping sons are likely to produce lots of grandchildren, by several women—or would have done in the hunter-gatherer societies in which most human evolution took place. Weak ones would be marginalized and maybe even killed in the cut and thrust of male competition. If a mother's stress adversely affects the development of her fetus then selectively aborting boys, rather than wasting time and resources on bringing them to term, would make evolutionary sense.
That, in turn, would explain why women in rich countries, who are less likely to suffer from hunger and disease, are more likely to give birth to sons. That this likelihood is, nevertheless, falling suggests that rich women's lives may be more stressful than they used to be.
1. The author begins the passage by ______.
A. presenting an argumentation
B. explaining a phenomenon
C. raising a question
D. making a comparison
2. The ratio of giving birth to a boy is falling in rich countries because _______.
A. wars exerted huge negative impact
B. women are facing greater pressure than past
C. women are under new pressure now which they seldom faced in the past
D. male pregnancies are more easily to miscarry
3. Which of the following can explain Dr. Obel's opinion that the ultimate cause is adaptive rather than pathological?
A. 47% of children born to women in the top quartile of stress were males while 52% in the bottom quartile.
B. Women in rich countries are more likely to give birth to boys.
C. Women selectively abort boys rather than waste time and resources on bringing them to term for fear of male competition.
D. Women who suffer from calamity in conception are more likely to give birth to girls.
4. Women in the hunter-gatherer societies are more likely to give birth to daughters because _____.
A. they agree that giving birth to daughters is beneficial in the evolutionary sense
B. sons are likely to produce lots of grandchildren with several women
C. they think it is a better practice for a daughter to produce grandchildren with only one mate
D. they think bringing sons to term is wasting time and resources
5. From this passage, we may draw a conclusion that _____.
A. acute stress is more likely to cause women to choose aborting boys than chronic stress
B. stress to a woman at the time of conception will shift the sex ratio towards girls
C. more girls will be born in the future because of the increasing pressure
D. chronic stress is more decisive in influencing the women's pregnancies